https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291478 Wharfage could be levied where a vessel was manifested and treated as cargo in connection with cable-laying imports, because the import declaration supported the port's cargo classification for tariff purposes. The Court also treated the later insertion of Note 10 in the tariff schedule as a prospective change from 25-3-2015, not a clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect. As a result, the earlier wharfage demand remained legally sustainable and the petitioner was not entitled to refund of the amount already paid. en-us Thu, 25 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Nov 2020 19:45:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291478 Wharfage could be levied where a vessel was manifested and treated as cargo in connection with cable-laying imports, because the import declaration supported the port's cargo classification for tariff purposes. The Court also treated the later insertion of Note 10 in the tariff schedule as a prospective change from 25-3-2015, not a clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect. As a result, the earlier wharfage demand remained legally sustainable and the petitioner was not entitled to refund of the amount already paid. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 25 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291478